/sci/ - Science & Math

HOLY SHIT THIS IS AWESOME! Hopefully they can get some serious investors from this.

Thank god the Ares was dropped in the latest budge proposal.

Also, I just want to point out that the first planned flight of NASA's Orion spacecraft is in 2014.

SpaceX did theirs just the other day.

SpaceX Dragon Capsule: $278M for development. $3.1 Billion for the maximum contract for ferrying cargo and crew to the ISS.

NASA's Orion: $15 Billion and it hasn't even done any test flights yet, and several billion more are planned.

Also, I just want to point out that the first planned flight of NASA's Orion spacecraft is in 2014.

SpaceX did theirs just the other day.

SpaceX Dragon Capsule: $278M for development. $3.1 Billion for the maximum contract for ferrying cargo and crew to the ISS.

NASA's Orion: $15 Billion and it hasn't even done any test flights yet, and several billion dollars more are planned for future developments by Lockheed.

>>2182100
who would anyone want to invest in meccano star trek models?

NASA is becoming a joke. While Obama is full of fail lately, at least he got this right..

>>2182148
The latest budget changes to NASA are basically a tacit acceptance of NASA's suckitude.

Not to say that NASA is all suck, but they suffer massively from politics and are bogged down with contractors like Lockheed who overprice everything 3000%.

The last budge change ended up dropping the waste of space and money that was the Constellation program [only the Orion was kept around] and devoted a large portion of funds to private ventures and COTS.

NASA still does some very excellent science, but they aren't even close to cheap about it.

NASA satellites being launched on SpaceX rockets would probably be the best of both worlds. NASA commits a large percentage of their budget to actual exploration rather than launch vehicles, and SpaceX gets money to continue improving their launch capabilities at a far lower cost than any of the other current contractors can even come close to providing.

>>2182171
I've been more supportive of Virgin galactic, but Space X seems to be in the lead now.

>>2182148
It's not just NASA, it's all of goverment.

It's an inherent fault in the mechanism of goverment, due to being goverment, they can claim taxes from people, because, duh they are the goverment, there's no competitive pressure for improvement of the system as people will continue to pay taxes which pay for the politicians and beurocrats living, if they fuck shit up and do it wrong, there's no opposition goverment people can go pay taxes to instead, at worst they may not get elected, but the beurocrats that are not elected will just create a comfortable money-cushioned fallback position for the nonelected politicians.

Only when the very existence of the agency or goverment is compromised there will be improvements, and maybe not even that considering they've got a violence monopoly to maintain the status quo with.

THAT was thrilling to watch. Direct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ci9xIgNZM

>>2182181
Well, I'm pretty convinced that the US is screwed. They just don't know it yet. I've been checking out Peter Schiff's analysis. It's very interesting and depressing.

>>2182178
The problem with Virgin Galactic is that they're just suckering in gullible rich people with space tourism. They aren't going to space, but they're selling it as if they are.

Virgin Galactic is a case of a company that got a lot of air time and PR in the media, without really doing anything.

When they've developed their own rocket and cargo transport capability, and are actually capable of getting to LEO, I might start taking them seriously. But for now, they're a joke.

>>2182208
link?

NASA funded SpaceX program, people.

Capitalists profitering with goverment funds? Outrageous!

>>2182248
>profitering
Even if you had spelled that word correctly, I don't think it means what you think it means.

>>2182178
>virgin galactic
why? it's a rollecoster for rich people.
completely unrelated to space travel.

>>2182225
stuff like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU

>>2182269
I'm really hoping for the development of viable spaceplanes. Shouldn't we develop something other than more rockets?

>>2182279
Designs are being developed. The space shuttle was essentially a space plane. But the sheer payload and maturity of rockets is hard to beat.

>>2182279
and what do you propose?
rockets are the most efficient way of thrust at low air densities

>>2182279
spaceplanes were tryed and failed. pic related.

>>2182279
We should, but Virgin Galactic is showing no signs of doing so.

So far we've got, White Knight 1/Spaceshipone, followed up by... White Knight 2/Spaceshiptwo, and they're essentially the exact same craft. With no [revealed] plans for anything further so far.

Contrast with SpaceX already having a heavy lift [on the order of the Saturn V] on the drawing board.

Virgin Galactic might be planning on spaceplanes eventually - but so far they've shown absolutely nothing that says they're serious about the venture they've gotten into.

To put it in terms of money - I would buy shares of SpaceX, and I would not buy Shares of Virgin Galactic.

>>2182297
There are other forms of spaceplanes.

I can see hypersonic scramjets being a possible way to reaching LEO, but it's very cutting edge technology that is still being actively researched.

>>2182304
still looks like a rocket to me...
just a more efficient one

>>2182319
LOL
I don't think you have ANY FUCKING IDEA of what you want.

>>2182319

you killed this thread.

>>2182376
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

> Virgin Galactic might be planning on spaceplanes eventually - but so far they've shown absolutely nothing that says they're serious about the venture they've gotten into.

I think that they're entirely serious about the venture they've gotten into ... which is a joyride for rich people. You get to leave the atmosphere, float in zero-g for a few minutes, and take some photos of the earth from space.

This business model requires a much lower initial investment than something like SpaceX, and doesn't rely upon the government for funding.

>>2182301
>>2182304
yup yup. I assume Virgin galactic is simply keeping their designs under wraps. I hope they can build a space shuttle sized White knight III. I also came across this Skylon spaceplane design. It looks interesting, but they don't seem to have good funding. Basically, I suspect rockets have been played out; there are not many ways to make them better or more efficient. But space planes are still very new, it's hard to tell if they would be better without many years of development. The space shuttle was more of a rocket really, a large proportion of the fuel is burnt up just to achieve lift off.

>>2182569
real orbital spaceplane is an order of magnitude more complex than virgin's design.
as for skylon, i'd love to see it work, but it's highly improbable.

if i had to put my money into something, it'll be SSTO reusable designs like DC-X or VentureStar.

>>2182549
>which is a joyride for rich people. You get to leave the atmosphere

It doesn't even do that.